by
Lou Hough
The Chick-Fil-A incident not only demonstrated how freedom of speech, behavior and corporate participation can work for both sides, it also demonstrated a need for all Americans to reconsider the nature of sexual humans -- both hetero- and homosexual.
Some say sex has evolved into "much ado about nothing". Compared with the need for food, water and shelter, such labeling seems appropriate. Without all the tabus placed on it, it probably would not have so much appeal.
In the creation stories (Genesis 1-3) God created man and woman in his own image and He told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth . . ." He left Adam to tend the Garden of Eden which had every tree that was beautiful or good for food, including a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 2, He made eating from the latter a tabu. God, then, left them to an innocent enjoyment of each other. Once they ate forbidden fruit, they clothed themselves and the sex act there-in-after was labeled sin. But the never asked question is did God forbid them sex or did He forbid them knowledge? Read it again.
Though they were to enjoy each others bodies and procreate prior to eating the fruit, childbearing became Eve's punishment afterward. Once sex was seen as evil, the die was cast. What God had meant as a warm intimacy between individuals now became a dreaded sin. As stated before, much ado about nothing.
As the world evolved, human interactions became so complex that rules, besides God's, were necessary. Anthropologists and sociologists refer to the need for "mores" -- rules first spoken and then written to eliminate chaos in the clans. These included marriage. That's right, when God blessed his newly created couple and told them to go and multiply, there seems not to have been a formal, licensed ceremony -- legal marriage. The first union was between God and the couple, not the couple and other people. It's the making of human laws that makes us think it's our business.
Laws against homosexuality began with the ancients, including the Jews. However, some of the incidents used by moderns as proof homosexuality is sin do not clearly pertain to same sex behaviors. The tribal war caused when some men wanted to have sex with a priest and ultimately raped a concubine unto death, as well as the incident when Lot's neighbors wanted to rape the Angels of God, were about rape, not homosexuality. The tribal war in the first was caused by the death of the concubine. Angels, who are said by many scholars never to have been human, may not even have sexual identities. If they do, are there no female angels?
Neither the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah nor Canaan describe exactly what the sexual sins were. It is just assumed by moderns that same sex relations were the problem. Hence, sodomy from Sodom.
Some readers believe the story of Jonathan and King David -- the King who seems not to have experienced any drastic punishment from God for his sexual exploits -- was a story of homosexual love.
The Apostle Paul, after experiencing hysterical blindness out of guilt for crucifying Jesus, did caution not to engage in homosexual activity. Even people who take his cautions not to marry with a grain of salt, accept his opinion about same sex love as the final word. But a closer look shows his objection was based on women abandoning their God-given role in life and engaging in sex with other women. That caused men to have to sleep with men. (And the ancients thought it was Atlas that carried the burden on his shoulders). Paul didn't like women dominating women and men being dominated by men. (Everyone knows men should dominate women -- at least in the eyes of the ancient church. Check out what else he said about a woman's place).
So now we have reached an impasse. We have nature, on the one hand, causing people to want to engage in both natural and "allegedly" unnatural acts and men of the Bible and others of the ancient world seeing God-given physiology as perverse and sinful. Saint Augustine said that to mix up whether a Biblical story is literal or figurative is wrong. He said if it pertained to virtue and truth it was literal. If not, it was figurative. But whose truth and whose definition of virtue?
Ever since the likes of Augustine, Paul and others of their times, any sexual act except that for procreation has been deemed a sin. Even sex for procreation, Augustine said was passing original sin from one generation to the next. Per him, Mary, Mother of Jesus, had to be born of Immaculate Conception lest a man's seed would pass original sin to her and from her to Jesus. Do you see the problem? Man has taken physiological creations of God and turned them into evil. But are they sin to God? If so, why did He allow the body to experience such phenomena?
Many fundamentalistic Christians see the reason great civilizations lost their world status as caused by one common factor -- they began to engage in homosexual relations. But are they ignoring other commonalities? For instance, they all began as small communities and grew to great and highly peopled kingdoms. Suppose homosexuality is a mechanism built within each organism and was meant by God as a means of controling for overcrowding?
Before you condemn me as a heretic, know this. Scientific studies among fish, worms, mollusks and plants indicate they can change sex when needed.
When reef fish have lost their single male, the largest female begins behaving like a male and can produce sperm in ten days. Some species of fish switch back and forth between producing sperm, then eggs. This occurs in at least fourteen species, even though their original sex seems genetically determined (physiological).
Switching in fish depends on either the size of the reef or the density of population. Sometimes entire harems convert to male. Males becoming female is less common, but in one species of bass, schools seem programed to have a certain number of males.
. Worms are born with no gender at all. As they travel, if they find a female, they become male, etc.
. Sex change is found in some frogs.
. Environmental factors can alter sex and gender.
. Some plants come with both male and female characteristics.
. Women are not always born with xx (women) chromosomes and men with xy (male) ones. If our gender physiology can vary among individuals, why do we find it so strange that our sexual orientation would vary?
Sometimes when in a fun-loving mood this author likes to visualize God as a right-brained, creative individual who was playing around in His heavenly laboratory. Not being left-brained, He neglected to follow rigid scientific rules and laws, thus causing an explosion. When He successfully recovered from His shock at the "big bang", He went to observe and clean up the mess.
Instead, He saw the earth, that it was good. Because it was without form, He set about hanging out the sun, moon and stars. He decorated it with the most beautiful trees, plants, colors and animal life available. He made man and woman simultaneously as in Genesis one. And he made them in His own image as androgynous individuals. He leaned back and watched them grow until there were too many, and then his alter physiological mechanism kicked in to slow the growth rate down.
Of course, it will take a lot more scientific work before these ideas are refuted or set in stone. But before that is completed, keep in mind that the ten rules that were set in stone did not include "thou shalt not enjoy sex with your significant other" or that "your significant other can't be of the same sex". And these were the rules written by the finger of God, not those that evolved from Man's need to control his fellow man. Also, don't forget, the great psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, said all of us have latent homosexual tendencies.
So you can see, though the C. E. O. of Chick-Fil-A had a right to express his opinion, his ideas were possibly based on an incorrect assumption. Same sex love is probaly based on physiology, not sinful choice.
Probably not the final word, but . . . the final word is God's. And God would no doubt want us not to flaunt or critique what He meant as an intimate act.
Lou Hough can be contacted at jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com. See her other articles shown below.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Americans and Religion
by
Lou Hough
In the time of Mary, Queen of Scotland, the Protestant movement clashed with the Catholic Church concerning which church held all the correct answers and should, therefore, control the realm. George Wishart was a Protestant reformer who was burned at the stake by Cardinal Beaton of St. Andrews. Later, some of Wishart's followers assassinated the Cardinal. John Knox, who started out as a Catholic Priest, became a Wishart disciple. He did not help kill the Cardinal but had no problem going to live in Beaton's castle with other Protestants. Queen Mary sent for her French connections who brought their fleet to take back the castle. This also brought down the wrath of John Knox upon her Catholic self.
John Calvin was also in the thick of the religious/government quarrels of the 1500's. He greatly influenced the Puritan beliefs of that age. Europeans, especially Puritans, flocked to America because they wanted religious freedom. They were tired of being persecuted for their beliefs.
It was out of this atmosphere that our founding fathers emerged. No government was to tell us our religious beliefs and no church was to run our government. It is unfortunate they did not make the written document more clear on this matter.
Article VI (3) "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
With this one small statement, the authors of the constitution protected our country from any religious group -- yours or mine -- determing who can hold office in our country. In other words, no Pope, Cardinal or Bishop of the Catholic Church; no President of the Southern Baptist Convention; No Imam; no Athiest organization can rule out our leaders because of what they believe about religion. This is frequently referred to as Separation of Church and State. Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties had yet been formed.
The First Ammendment, ratified in 1791, further guaranteed us Freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Despite our forefathers attempts to spare us religion in government and government in religion, this is still a problem in the United States of America. So, when we -- at least those of us in the legislative majority at the time a law is forged -- step over the line infringing on the religious and other personal rights of Americans, it becames the job of the Supreme Court to decide if the law is Constitutional -- Constitutional protection. They have had to step in from time to time.
In 1956, the United States made "In God We Trust" the official motto of the country. But this had been printed on our coins since 1864. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln was in charge; Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
E Pluribus Unum, meaning out of many, one, (from 13 states to one union) is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams first suggested it and since 1873, while Ulysses S. Grant was President, law requires that it is on one side of each coin submitted. Sometimes both this motto and In God We Trust are printed around the edge of our money.
The author of the Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words "under God" in his original manuscript. Consequently, it was not part of the original Pledge when the Flag Code was adopted in 1942. A man named Louis Bowman began inserting it and various organizations followed his lead until it was added by law in 1952. When the original code was adopted, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President and Harry S. Truman was at the helm when under God was added legally.
The Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade) in 1973, said that with few exceptions, states cannot keep women from having an abortion during the first six months of the pregnancy. It further ruled that the Texas law that had denied Jane Roe an abortion violated a woman's right to privacy. Regretably, a privacy right, is not a part of the Constitution, though most courts choose to protect privacy where possible. A 1974 Privacy Act gives individuals the right to examine files, like those developed on them by the Federal Government, and they can ask to have incorrect information changed. In 1973-74, Richard Nixon was President.
So why this sudden article? One of my readers has decided that no Christians should vote Democratic, because Democrats are responsible, single-handedly, for God being separated from our government and country. He implies that the current Democratic President is responsible for every bad thing that has befallen America in the last three years and is saying to vote for him, a Democrat, should be unthinkable. He mentions other laws that Democrats have made in their "assault" on God in our country, but I think these are enough to illustrate that the men in charge at the time of our beginnings and the interim changes have been people from all different political positions.
Besides, presidents, as most of us are aware, cannot enact laws by themselves. Laws are generated in Congress. We would like to believe they are written by level-headed citizens who weigh each idea and thought and choose them for the good of our country. Some congresses are better at this than others. Regretably, some congressmen vote along strict party lines no matter who gets hurt in the process. Worse still, some vote because they owe favors to other Congressmen.
So let's question for a minute. What party was in charge when the Constitution was written? We didn't have a President to thank or blame then. Did Republicans or Democrats authorize the Constitutional Ammendments? Duh, neither. Was Congress Republican or Democrat when the Pledge was enacted? Which, when it was changed? Which party was in charge when the Supreme Court decided that Texas commited an unconstitutional act when it told Jane Roe she could not have an abortion?
You see it is not all black and white how we get our laws, whatever they are. The President can suggest. The laws are generated in Congress -- usually a version for the House and one for the Senate. When Congress is functioning correctly, they work out the bugs together and come to a final document. Then they vote. Once they pass the law, the President either signs it or vetoes it. Then if people object and say it is unconstitutional, it can be reviewed by the Supreme Court who has the final say on its Constitutional legality. These checks and balances were meant to protect us so that a single person or small group cannot impose their will on the majority of the people.
Ideally, the habit of voting for or against legislation in any branch of our magnificent government will cease to be controled by party politics. Hopefully, the well-being of all Americans, not just a favored few will be the criteria used. With our current dysfunctional Congress I won't hold my breath.
Lou Hough: B. S. in Journalism, SIU, Carbondale, IL; M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, K. C. MO; All But Disertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School Psychology.
Publications include Changes, a novel and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays. Both were published by Jamie Carr Publishing in 2004. e-mail -- jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Lou Hough
In the time of Mary, Queen of Scotland, the Protestant movement clashed with the Catholic Church concerning which church held all the correct answers and should, therefore, control the realm. George Wishart was a Protestant reformer who was burned at the stake by Cardinal Beaton of St. Andrews. Later, some of Wishart's followers assassinated the Cardinal. John Knox, who started out as a Catholic Priest, became a Wishart disciple. He did not help kill the Cardinal but had no problem going to live in Beaton's castle with other Protestants. Queen Mary sent for her French connections who brought their fleet to take back the castle. This also brought down the wrath of John Knox upon her Catholic self.
John Calvin was also in the thick of the religious/government quarrels of the 1500's. He greatly influenced the Puritan beliefs of that age. Europeans, especially Puritans, flocked to America because they wanted religious freedom. They were tired of being persecuted for their beliefs.
It was out of this atmosphere that our founding fathers emerged. No government was to tell us our religious beliefs and no church was to run our government. It is unfortunate they did not make the written document more clear on this matter.
Article VI (3) "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
With this one small statement, the authors of the constitution protected our country from any religious group -- yours or mine -- determing who can hold office in our country. In other words, no Pope, Cardinal or Bishop of the Catholic Church; no President of the Southern Baptist Convention; No Imam; no Athiest organization can rule out our leaders because of what they believe about religion. This is frequently referred to as Separation of Church and State. Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties had yet been formed.
The First Ammendment, ratified in 1791, further guaranteed us Freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Despite our forefathers attempts to spare us religion in government and government in religion, this is still a problem in the United States of America. So, when we -- at least those of us in the legislative majority at the time a law is forged -- step over the line infringing on the religious and other personal rights of Americans, it becames the job of the Supreme Court to decide if the law is Constitutional -- Constitutional protection. They have had to step in from time to time.
In 1956, the United States made "In God We Trust" the official motto of the country. But this had been printed on our coins since 1864. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln was in charge; Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
E Pluribus Unum, meaning out of many, one, (from 13 states to one union) is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams first suggested it and since 1873, while Ulysses S. Grant was President, law requires that it is on one side of each coin submitted. Sometimes both this motto and In God We Trust are printed around the edge of our money.
The author of the Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words "under God" in his original manuscript. Consequently, it was not part of the original Pledge when the Flag Code was adopted in 1942. A man named Louis Bowman began inserting it and various organizations followed his lead until it was added by law in 1952. When the original code was adopted, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President and Harry S. Truman was at the helm when under God was added legally.
The Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade) in 1973, said that with few exceptions, states cannot keep women from having an abortion during the first six months of the pregnancy. It further ruled that the Texas law that had denied Jane Roe an abortion violated a woman's right to privacy. Regretably, a privacy right, is not a part of the Constitution, though most courts choose to protect privacy where possible. A 1974 Privacy Act gives individuals the right to examine files, like those developed on them by the Federal Government, and they can ask to have incorrect information changed. In 1973-74, Richard Nixon was President.
So why this sudden article? One of my readers has decided that no Christians should vote Democratic, because Democrats are responsible, single-handedly, for God being separated from our government and country. He implies that the current Democratic President is responsible for every bad thing that has befallen America in the last three years and is saying to vote for him, a Democrat, should be unthinkable. He mentions other laws that Democrats have made in their "assault" on God in our country, but I think these are enough to illustrate that the men in charge at the time of our beginnings and the interim changes have been people from all different political positions.
Besides, presidents, as most of us are aware, cannot enact laws by themselves. Laws are generated in Congress. We would like to believe they are written by level-headed citizens who weigh each idea and thought and choose them for the good of our country. Some congresses are better at this than others. Regretably, some congressmen vote along strict party lines no matter who gets hurt in the process. Worse still, some vote because they owe favors to other Congressmen.
So let's question for a minute. What party was in charge when the Constitution was written? We didn't have a President to thank or blame then. Did Republicans or Democrats authorize the Constitutional Ammendments? Duh, neither. Was Congress Republican or Democrat when the Pledge was enacted? Which, when it was changed? Which party was in charge when the Supreme Court decided that Texas commited an unconstitutional act when it told Jane Roe she could not have an abortion?
You see it is not all black and white how we get our laws, whatever they are. The President can suggest. The laws are generated in Congress -- usually a version for the House and one for the Senate. When Congress is functioning correctly, they work out the bugs together and come to a final document. Then they vote. Once they pass the law, the President either signs it or vetoes it. Then if people object and say it is unconstitutional, it can be reviewed by the Supreme Court who has the final say on its Constitutional legality. These checks and balances were meant to protect us so that a single person or small group cannot impose their will on the majority of the people.
Ideally, the habit of voting for or against legislation in any branch of our magnificent government will cease to be controled by party politics. Hopefully, the well-being of all Americans, not just a favored few will be the criteria used. With our current dysfunctional Congress I won't hold my breath.
Lou Hough: B. S. in Journalism, SIU, Carbondale, IL; M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, K. C. MO; All But Disertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School Psychology.
Publications include Changes, a novel and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays. Both were published by Jamie Carr Publishing in 2004. e-mail -- jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Letters to the Editor These letters are available under comments below the blog articles.
JoeDan, my comments concerning the Family Values party were not related to abortion only. My blog, Trickle Down Politics, is mostly based on what is currently happening in the political world. For background information, I read Time, Newsweek, the AARP publications and listen to 1 1/2 to 2 hours of news daily. I also watch "This Week" on ABC each Sunday. I consult books such as encyclopedias and use on-line search engines. At the time that I published the articles in question, "Et Tu, Democrats" and "Spare Us the Radical Religious Right", there was much in the media concerning Rick Santorum and his quite extreme right-winged political views. Although I respect his right to live how he wants and even state what he thinks, he was running for President of the United States and talking of changing laws so that all Americans would have to live by his radical point of view. He was attacking birth control as a sin, abortion as a crime, and same-sex relationships in general. That motor-mouth/small brain Rush Limbaugh was calling a perfectly lovely woman a whore and prostitute because she wanted her birth control pills covered, too, if every other woman's was to be covered.
Frankly, I have a little trouble understanding why the birth control pills, etc., were to be covered by insurance anyway, but see no reason why women should have to pay for their own just because they work for Catholic institutions. If one woman gets help, they should all get help. As you might surmise at this point, I am not a Catholic.
I hope that you will go to the library and look up past issues of the two newsmagazines mentioned above. They cover both topics extremely well. There is one quite long article concerning the Santorum campaign and his point of view.
With respect to "you and your friends" and the fact you don't want to pay for abortions and other women's issues, I would ask you to think how you would feel if women did not want to pay for a prostate exam or surgery if you ever needed one. That is a man's issue.
As for why I have something against Christians, I didn't know I did. I will be seventy-four years old on July 29 of this year. I have been a Christian since I was nine. I even write devotional essays which are based on a combination of Christian beliefs and my own view of the world.
If you will reread the title, "Spare Us the Radical Religious Right" again, you may understand that it is radical religious views to which I object. I also reject the idea that someone else's religious views should be imposed on all Americans. That is why I began the article with the Muslim example. If one religion can go into office and impose their beliefs on us all, other religions can expect to do the same. We are constitutionally protected against that possibility.
Lou Hough
JoeDan, my comments concerning the Family Values party were not related to abortion only. My blog, Trickle Down Politics, is mostly based on what is currently happening in the political world. For background information, I read Time, Newsweek, the AARP publications and listen to 1 1/2 to 2 hours of news daily. I also watch "This Week" on ABC each Sunday. I consult books such as encyclopedias and use on-line search engines. At the time that I published the articles in question, "Et Tu, Democrats" and "Spare Us the Radical Religious Right", there was much in the media concerning Rick Santorum and his quite extreme right-winged political views. Although I respect his right to live how he wants and even state what he thinks, he was running for President of the United States and talking of changing laws so that all Americans would have to live by his radical point of view. He was attacking birth control as a sin, abortion as a crime, and same-sex relationships in general. That motor-mouth/small brain Rush Limbaugh was calling a perfectly lovely woman a whore and prostitute because she wanted her birth control pills covered, too, if every other woman's was to be covered.
Frankly, I have a little trouble understanding why the birth control pills, etc., were to be covered by insurance anyway, but see no reason why women should have to pay for their own just because they work for Catholic institutions. If one woman gets help, they should all get help. As you might surmise at this point, I am not a Catholic.
I hope that you will go to the library and look up past issues of the two newsmagazines mentioned above. They cover both topics extremely well. There is one quite long article concerning the Santorum campaign and his point of view.
With respect to "you and your friends" and the fact you don't want to pay for abortions and other women's issues, I would ask you to think how you would feel if women did not want to pay for a prostate exam or surgery if you ever needed one. That is a man's issue.
As for why I have something against Christians, I didn't know I did. I will be seventy-four years old on July 29 of this year. I have been a Christian since I was nine. I even write devotional essays which are based on a combination of Christian beliefs and my own view of the world.
If you will reread the title, "Spare Us the Radical Religious Right" again, you may understand that it is radical religious views to which I object. I also reject the idea that someone else's religious views should be imposed on all Americans. That is why I began the article with the Muslim example. If one religion can go into office and impose their beliefs on us all, other religions can expect to do the same. We are constitutionally protected against that possibility.
Lou Hough
Me, Me, Me
by
Lou Hough
Several years ago, after this author had moved from her hometown, she received word about a young, unwed mother in that town who was using food stamps. The complaint was many pronged, as the girl was driving around town in a new little red car. The time was before unwed pregnancies were commonplace. It was a place where food stamps were unacceptable. It was extremely inappropriate to have food stamps and a new red car.
The basic story is true, though the grapevine may have embroidered the particulars. The father refused to acknowledge the child -- before DNA. He refused to support the child. The town preferred to bad-mouth the unwed mother than to offer her a decent job. The poor baby needed food, clothing and shelter. All the boy's parents could see their way clear to do was to offer the girl a little red consolation prize. Hence, food stamps and a car. That was the face of welfare then.
This is the face of welfare now. Several television interviews have featured highly educated couples -- both wage earners -- the most highly paid member of the unit, laid off from his or her job. In some cases, both have been cut due to the economy. They paid mortgages and bought food until savings ran out and their unemployment benefits expired. For the love of their 2.3 American children, they were forced to apply for food stamps and medical assistance. An humiliating experience, indeed.
Senior citizens had no raises during 2010 and 2011. Why? Because there was no cost of living increase in the third quarters of 2009 and 2010. Not the whole year, just one quarter. This is a group of people who, at best, are always living on last year's cost of living increase during the current year. The economy doesn't care, folks. Utilities continued to go up. Rents increased. Charges for Supplemental Health Insurance soared. In other words, seniors used their savings to pay these expenses until, for many, their cash reserves ran out.
A lot of people lost their retirement packages because they were "laid off" by their companies. Others lose them to corporate theft and mishandling. Nationally, people know of the Enron and Madhoff scandals, but there are smaller-level thieves and incompetents who are known only to their own communities.
Yes, these people are all the face of welfare today. They are white, Asian, Hispanic, African American. They are the rich, the upper, middle and lower middle classes of the past. They are also the always poor of our country. They represent all races and walks off life. They are American.
Do we just let them starve? Do we let them die from lack of medical care?
A friend of this author once said their families and friends should take care of them. Can they afford it? Do they have extra dollars? Are they willing to risk their own futures to help a friend or relative?
Others think churches should do it. Do church members in affluent neighborhoods know the poorest of the poor? Probably they know very few of them. Do they know how to help?
Food pantries abound. Some, like Kansas City's Harvesters, are good. But do they offer showers, jobs, clothing, transportation? Shelters are overflowing during inclement weather.
Small business owners and corporate boards and leaders bitch continuously that they have to pay not only the salaries of their employees, but also medical insurance, fees for social security and workman's comp and taxes for welfare. In other words, because they refuse to pay a wage adequate enough that their employees can save for their futures, the government programs exact the wage from them.
Because of small business and corporate greed of the '80's, or the '70's, or the '90's or now, liberal congressmen of the past stepped in to exact a toll to protect all Americans of the future. And never let it be said that you will never be one of them. Share the wealth while you have it -- partake of the plenty when you don't. We all need to quit hollering for me, me, me and start thinking of we, we, we.
Whatever was congress thinking to expect a millionaire to live on $900,000 a year instead of their whole $1,000,000? (For my more literal, left-brained readers, the figures are hypothetical, not literal.) Only the "me" generation could fail to see the humor in this.
Lou Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU-Carbondale, IL; M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, Kansas City; All But Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Among Ms. Hough's publications are Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays. Both were published by Jamie Carr Publishing in 2004. Changes is available at Barnes and Noble on-line service.
The only address for reaching Jamie Carr Publishing or Lou Hough is jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com.
Lou Hough
Several years ago, after this author had moved from her hometown, she received word about a young, unwed mother in that town who was using food stamps. The complaint was many pronged, as the girl was driving around town in a new little red car. The time was before unwed pregnancies were commonplace. It was a place where food stamps were unacceptable. It was extremely inappropriate to have food stamps and a new red car.
The basic story is true, though the grapevine may have embroidered the particulars. The father refused to acknowledge the child -- before DNA. He refused to support the child. The town preferred to bad-mouth the unwed mother than to offer her a decent job. The poor baby needed food, clothing and shelter. All the boy's parents could see their way clear to do was to offer the girl a little red consolation prize. Hence, food stamps and a car. That was the face of welfare then.
This is the face of welfare now. Several television interviews have featured highly educated couples -- both wage earners -- the most highly paid member of the unit, laid off from his or her job. In some cases, both have been cut due to the economy. They paid mortgages and bought food until savings ran out and their unemployment benefits expired. For the love of their 2.3 American children, they were forced to apply for food stamps and medical assistance. An humiliating experience, indeed.
Senior citizens had no raises during 2010 and 2011. Why? Because there was no cost of living increase in the third quarters of 2009 and 2010. Not the whole year, just one quarter. This is a group of people who, at best, are always living on last year's cost of living increase during the current year. The economy doesn't care, folks. Utilities continued to go up. Rents increased. Charges for Supplemental Health Insurance soared. In other words, seniors used their savings to pay these expenses until, for many, their cash reserves ran out.
A lot of people lost their retirement packages because they were "laid off" by their companies. Others lose them to corporate theft and mishandling. Nationally, people know of the Enron and Madhoff scandals, but there are smaller-level thieves and incompetents who are known only to their own communities.
Yes, these people are all the face of welfare today. They are white, Asian, Hispanic, African American. They are the rich, the upper, middle and lower middle classes of the past. They are also the always poor of our country. They represent all races and walks off life. They are American.
Do we just let them starve? Do we let them die from lack of medical care?
A friend of this author once said their families and friends should take care of them. Can they afford it? Do they have extra dollars? Are they willing to risk their own futures to help a friend or relative?
Others think churches should do it. Do church members in affluent neighborhoods know the poorest of the poor? Probably they know very few of them. Do they know how to help?
Food pantries abound. Some, like Kansas City's Harvesters, are good. But do they offer showers, jobs, clothing, transportation? Shelters are overflowing during inclement weather.
Small business owners and corporate boards and leaders bitch continuously that they have to pay not only the salaries of their employees, but also medical insurance, fees for social security and workman's comp and taxes for welfare. In other words, because they refuse to pay a wage adequate enough that their employees can save for their futures, the government programs exact the wage from them.
Because of small business and corporate greed of the '80's, or the '70's, or the '90's or now, liberal congressmen of the past stepped in to exact a toll to protect all Americans of the future. And never let it be said that you will never be one of them. Share the wealth while you have it -- partake of the plenty when you don't. We all need to quit hollering for me, me, me and start thinking of we, we, we.
Whatever was congress thinking to expect a millionaire to live on $900,000 a year instead of their whole $1,000,000? (For my more literal, left-brained readers, the figures are hypothetical, not literal.) Only the "me" generation could fail to see the humor in this.
Lou Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU-Carbondale, IL; M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, Kansas City; All But Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Among Ms. Hough's publications are Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays. Both were published by Jamie Carr Publishing in 2004. Changes is available at Barnes and Noble on-line service.
The only address for reaching Jamie Carr Publishing or Lou Hough is jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Et Tu, Democrats?
by
Lou Hough
About the only thing my sources agree about on the beginnings of the Democratic Party is that it is the oldest existing party. Some sources believe it started with Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party and others that it started later with Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign -- with his committee to elect him being the beginning. Whether it began from remnants of an older party or had a fresh start, it is fairly clear that its policies now are no more like the ones at its start than are those of the Republican Party, which was last month's blog topic.
Early on, the Party espoused a strict interpretation of the Constitution and believed in small government, especially at the federal level. It was not until the depression, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that the federal government first expanded. His measures to save the country from the depression seemed to require federal intervention, a level of interference with which even some Democrats disagreed.
At first the party was popular with farmers, plantation owners, bankers and urban laborers. These groups all believed in small government and states rights. Members of the Party quarreled often over slavery, banking and tariffs. Most of the quarreling was over slavery, of course, peeking with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. These issues resulted in the beginnings of the Republican Party.
After this, the south became largely Democratic, which is not necessarily the case at this time. Democrats fought for reform in both the government and private sectors, causing the parties to become quite similar over time. However, the Democrats now seem to favor social and entitlement programs, which Republicans do not. Republicans favor, in theory, a "hands off" government approach, all the while wanting to regulate personal choices of individuals. Both parties have changed enough over time as to no longer resemble their original form.
Democrats seem to be more oriented toward Civil Rights and helping those less well off than themselves. Even Democrats from the one percent holding most of the country's wealth are more likely to want the entitlements that help others.
The parties are so dissimilar in beliefs at this point, that they can barely get a piece of legislation through Congress.
Lou Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU, Carbondale, IL; M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, Kansas City, MO; All But Dissertation, School Psychology, KU, Lawrence, KS. Lou Hough can be reached at Jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com (this is the only correct address at this time).
Publications include Changes, a novel; and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays. Both were published by Jamie Carr Publications in 2004. Changes is available through Barnes and Noble on-line service. If interested in Food for the Soul, please write Ms. Hough at the e-mail address.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
A New Political Party Creation
by
Lou Hough
A group of citizens are unhappy about congressional legislation so they appoint a committee to form a new political party. The ideas of the new party do not have general, but rather sectional, appeal. Many of the members of the party seem radical. The year the party is formed is 1854. The nickname given to them in the 1880's is "Grand Old Party."
The legislation these new G. O. P. members opposed was the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 which permitted slavery in these two new territories. The Radical Republicans made the abolition of slavery their main goal. When they lost the election of 1856 they knew they needed to change their goals, so they endorsed a transcontinental rail system and federal aid for harbors and rivers. They promised settlement of the west, a raise in U. S. tariff rates and to permit slavery where it already had permission to exist. The latter was a major compromise of their original goals.
Abraham Lincoln won their first election for them and the Civil War began almost at once. He worked desparately to hold the Union together. In fact, during his presidency, the Republicans preferred to be called the Union Party or National Union Party.
After the Civil War ended and Lincoln was assassinated, Radical Republicans took over the Congress. They, in favor of punishing the south, took away votes of Confederate soldiers and gave the vote to former slaves. Southerners rejected Republican leadership and the south became Democratic. The arguing amongst the ranks eventually ended.
Then came industrialization, which neither party could handle. A few wealthy business leaders got control (and still cling to it today) causing regular wage earners and farmers to experience hard times.
The party split apart when William Howard Taft was President. They reunited after they lost the election in 1912.
The focus of the 1920's was business and industry, and Republicans kept their taxes low and tariffs high. After a long period of Republican presidents, the country experienced the depression and then Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, took the helm. This led to a Republican Party population of business leaders, farmers and conservative workers. For twenty years they remained the minority party. The New Deal reigned and the Republicans attacked it year after year. Welfare programs expanded. Democrats led the country until the Republicans nominated a WW II hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate. After another round of Democrats, they nominated Barry Goldwater, an extreme conservative. He was defeated by Lyndon B. Johnson who promoted Civil Rights and laws to help the disadvantaged. Apparently he sought to make sense of the martyrdom of President John F. Kennedy by pushing through the latter's agenda.
Over the years since then, Republicans have become, more and more, conservatives who support the wealthy and Democrats have become identified as liberals bent on providing welfare and support for the other 99% of the population. To quote an old cigarette ad -- the one Mitt Romney recently quoted -- "You've come a long way, baby." To be a Republican today is to be a far cry from the roots of the original Party.
Lou Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU, Carbondale, IL; M. A. Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, K.C. MO; All But Dissertation, School Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Publications include: Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays, both published by Jamie Carr Publishing, 2004. jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Lou Hough
A group of citizens are unhappy about congressional legislation so they appoint a committee to form a new political party. The ideas of the new party do not have general, but rather sectional, appeal. Many of the members of the party seem radical. The year the party is formed is 1854. The nickname given to them in the 1880's is "Grand Old Party."
The legislation these new G. O. P. members opposed was the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 which permitted slavery in these two new territories. The Radical Republicans made the abolition of slavery their main goal. When they lost the election of 1856 they knew they needed to change their goals, so they endorsed a transcontinental rail system and federal aid for harbors and rivers. They promised settlement of the west, a raise in U. S. tariff rates and to permit slavery where it already had permission to exist. The latter was a major compromise of their original goals.
Abraham Lincoln won their first election for them and the Civil War began almost at once. He worked desparately to hold the Union together. In fact, during his presidency, the Republicans preferred to be called the Union Party or National Union Party.
After the Civil War ended and Lincoln was assassinated, Radical Republicans took over the Congress. They, in favor of punishing the south, took away votes of Confederate soldiers and gave the vote to former slaves. Southerners rejected Republican leadership and the south became Democratic. The arguing amongst the ranks eventually ended.
Then came industrialization, which neither party could handle. A few wealthy business leaders got control (and still cling to it today) causing regular wage earners and farmers to experience hard times.
The party split apart when William Howard Taft was President. They reunited after they lost the election in 1912.
The focus of the 1920's was business and industry, and Republicans kept their taxes low and tariffs high. After a long period of Republican presidents, the country experienced the depression and then Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, took the helm. This led to a Republican Party population of business leaders, farmers and conservative workers. For twenty years they remained the minority party. The New Deal reigned and the Republicans attacked it year after year. Welfare programs expanded. Democrats led the country until the Republicans nominated a WW II hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate. After another round of Democrats, they nominated Barry Goldwater, an extreme conservative. He was defeated by Lyndon B. Johnson who promoted Civil Rights and laws to help the disadvantaged. Apparently he sought to make sense of the martyrdom of President John F. Kennedy by pushing through the latter's agenda.
Over the years since then, Republicans have become, more and more, conservatives who support the wealthy and Democrats have become identified as liberals bent on providing welfare and support for the other 99% of the population. To quote an old cigarette ad -- the one Mitt Romney recently quoted -- "You've come a long way, baby." To be a Republican today is to be a far cry from the roots of the original Party.
Lou Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU, Carbondale, IL; M. A. Educational Research and Psychology, UMKC, K.C. MO; All But Dissertation, School Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Publications include: Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays, both published by Jamie Carr Publishing, 2004. jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Friday, March 16, 2012
Spare Us the Radical Religious Right
by
Lou Hough
At the time citizens of our country were vociferously fighting an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero, This Week on ABC held a town hall meeting to discuss the controversy. The wife of the religious leader who would head the Islamic Center kept assuring everyone there was no Muslim movement to inflict their religion on American citizens. Their goals were, according to her, benign.
A Muslim radical who was among the long-distance participants begged to differ. After dressing her down for not being a proper Muslim woman -- she was in American clothing -- he proceeded to announce his expectations that some day the Muslim flag would be flying over the White House.
Now this, folks, is an extreme example of why our forefathers saw fit to include a separation of church and state in our Sixth Article and First Ammendment of our Constitution. Many Americans, including some of our current lawmakers, forget that though it may feel good when the controling powers hold the same religious beliefs as yours, it would be quite oppressive if the "wrong" religion was in charge.
Most of us don't want the Talliban and Al Quaeda alive and well and running Washington, D. C. Neither do we want a minority religious right making life unbearable for us all.
Few of us have encountered any basic religious sect, denomination or even individual church that doesn't proclaim that they have the one and only "right" answer. We've all been guilty of religious arrogance whether we are fundamental Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Agnostics or even Atheists. None of us want anyone else telling us what to believe and, in this country, we have a Constitutional right not to have to live by someone else's religious rules.
Interestingly enough, the very party that claims not to believe in Federal Control and interference is the same "Family Values" party that wants to tell everyone else who they can marry, whether they can choose if they want to have an unplanned baby and whether or not they are sluts and prostitutes just because they want their birth control pills paid for, too.
Perhaps all of us should question why payment for birth control pills got written into the insurance program in the first place. Possibly it is part of the preventive care approach which is said to be an important part of the plan. Whatever the reason, if one group of employees gets to have it, all should get to have it. Maybe at this point we need to question why Catholic universities and hospitals are hiring non-Catholic employees. If everyone that works in these institutions is Catholic, one might say that they are used to the heavy hand of a male Pope who has no experience with being pregnant, staying up all night with a screaming baby or, for that matter, making a husband's minimum wage job stretch enough to feed seven or nine kids. We won't even discuss clothing, sheltering and educating a mob. But then, Rick Santorum has so-informed us that it is snobbery to want all American children (except his, of course) to have a chance at a college education.
Now, abortion is a more complicated matter. This author does not believe that she could ever choose to have an abortion. But this author was never faced with an unwanted or untimely pregnancy. She does believe, however, in a woman's right to choose. She is concerned for the health and sanity of the stay-at-home mother with nine children who never gets to see her husband because he works two to three jobs. This is the same woman who has to count out cookies to make sure each child gets an equal amount. Then, one of the half dozen or so times a year she has recreational sex with her husband, the rhythm method doesn't work. She knows full well that nine other children will suffer if the tenth is born. She knows her husband will have to get another job -- or else she will have to work -- and where will she find forty more hours a week.
There are those who proclaim she should have the baby and adopt it out. Have they ever been pregnant? Do they know the wear and tear it makes on the body? Have they ever had to search the depths of their energy to find strength to waddle up the street and collect a child from a play date? Would they really be able to carry a child full term and pass it off to someone else? Probably not, and if they could, they would probably experience a giant, aching emotional hole the rest of their lives.
And, ah, stem cell research -- a much trickier matter yet. The use of cells from placentas, one's own body or unborn fetuses to develop cures for living, breathing children and adults. Either way one goes, one is making life and death choices -- one is playing god. Which is the most unethical decision? Is it harvesting frozen embryos that will never be born anyway in order to save lives of those already here? Or is it denying a remarkable living, breathing child a cure from a heinous disease or perhaps a permanent annihilation of cancer or Parkinson's? What if it is your child?
But never fear. The radical, religious right is here to tell us all what we should do. They have the answers for everyone. They know best. And they accuse someone else of snobbery? God, please spare us all.
Sandra Louise Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU-Carbondale, M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, All But Dissertation, School Psychology, KU, Lawrence, KS
Publications include Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays, both published in 2004 by Jamie Carr Publishing. jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Lou Hough
At the time citizens of our country were vociferously fighting an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero, This Week on ABC held a town hall meeting to discuss the controversy. The wife of the religious leader who would head the Islamic Center kept assuring everyone there was no Muslim movement to inflict their religion on American citizens. Their goals were, according to her, benign.
A Muslim radical who was among the long-distance participants begged to differ. After dressing her down for not being a proper Muslim woman -- she was in American clothing -- he proceeded to announce his expectations that some day the Muslim flag would be flying over the White House.
Now this, folks, is an extreme example of why our forefathers saw fit to include a separation of church and state in our Sixth Article and First Ammendment of our Constitution. Many Americans, including some of our current lawmakers, forget that though it may feel good when the controling powers hold the same religious beliefs as yours, it would be quite oppressive if the "wrong" religion was in charge.
Most of us don't want the Talliban and Al Quaeda alive and well and running Washington, D. C. Neither do we want a minority religious right making life unbearable for us all.
Few of us have encountered any basic religious sect, denomination or even individual church that doesn't proclaim that they have the one and only "right" answer. We've all been guilty of religious arrogance whether we are fundamental Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Agnostics or even Atheists. None of us want anyone else telling us what to believe and, in this country, we have a Constitutional right not to have to live by someone else's religious rules.
Interestingly enough, the very party that claims not to believe in Federal Control and interference is the same "Family Values" party that wants to tell everyone else who they can marry, whether they can choose if they want to have an unplanned baby and whether or not they are sluts and prostitutes just because they want their birth control pills paid for, too.
Perhaps all of us should question why payment for birth control pills got written into the insurance program in the first place. Possibly it is part of the preventive care approach which is said to be an important part of the plan. Whatever the reason, if one group of employees gets to have it, all should get to have it. Maybe at this point we need to question why Catholic universities and hospitals are hiring non-Catholic employees. If everyone that works in these institutions is Catholic, one might say that they are used to the heavy hand of a male Pope who has no experience with being pregnant, staying up all night with a screaming baby or, for that matter, making a husband's minimum wage job stretch enough to feed seven or nine kids. We won't even discuss clothing, sheltering and educating a mob. But then, Rick Santorum has so-informed us that it is snobbery to want all American children (except his, of course) to have a chance at a college education.
Now, abortion is a more complicated matter. This author does not believe that she could ever choose to have an abortion. But this author was never faced with an unwanted or untimely pregnancy. She does believe, however, in a woman's right to choose. She is concerned for the health and sanity of the stay-at-home mother with nine children who never gets to see her husband because he works two to three jobs. This is the same woman who has to count out cookies to make sure each child gets an equal amount. Then, one of the half dozen or so times a year she has recreational sex with her husband, the rhythm method doesn't work. She knows full well that nine other children will suffer if the tenth is born. She knows her husband will have to get another job -- or else she will have to work -- and where will she find forty more hours a week.
There are those who proclaim she should have the baby and adopt it out. Have they ever been pregnant? Do they know the wear and tear it makes on the body? Have they ever had to search the depths of their energy to find strength to waddle up the street and collect a child from a play date? Would they really be able to carry a child full term and pass it off to someone else? Probably not, and if they could, they would probably experience a giant, aching emotional hole the rest of their lives.
And, ah, stem cell research -- a much trickier matter yet. The use of cells from placentas, one's own body or unborn fetuses to develop cures for living, breathing children and adults. Either way one goes, one is making life and death choices -- one is playing god. Which is the most unethical decision? Is it harvesting frozen embryos that will never be born anyway in order to save lives of those already here? Or is it denying a remarkable living, breathing child a cure from a heinous disease or perhaps a permanent annihilation of cancer or Parkinson's? What if it is your child?
But never fear. The radical, religious right is here to tell us all what we should do. They have the answers for everyone. They know best. And they accuse someone else of snobbery? God, please spare us all.
Sandra Louise Hough, B. S. in Journalism, SIU-Carbondale, M. A. in Educational Research and Psychology, All But Dissertation, School Psychology, KU, Lawrence, KS
Publications include Changes, a novel, and Food for the Soul: A Book of Devotional Essays, both published in 2004 by Jamie Carr Publishing. jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)